Kalispell council agrees to tighten weed and junk-vehicle rules, will track complaints before funding a full-time officer

Kalispell — City staff presented proposed changes to the community decay and junk-vehicle ordinances at the March 24 City of Kalispell work session and outlined options for staffing a dedicated code-enforcement program, but council members declined to approve a full-time position now and asked staff to track complaints for a year.

At the meeting staff member Doug Russell framed the choices as a policy question for council, saying, “What does council want for your level of service deliveries that relates to code enforcement?” Russell recommended revisions to two existing ordinances and described three funding options: absorb a position in the general fund, create a special district with a dedicated mill levy, or continue complaint-driven enforcement without dedicated personnel.

Russell said the two ordinance changes staff recommends are to move tall weeds and grasses from the fire code into the community decay ordinance and to expand and clarify the junk-vehicle definition used for enforcement. Under the proposed community decay language, vegetation over 8 inches would be a violation regardless of date; staff would remove the current July 1 trigger tied to the fire code. Exemptions would include parcels larger than 15,000 square feet, hillsides, wetlands and areas that are inaccessible or impractical to mow, Russell said. For abatement, staff proposed a streamlined process with a 10-day notice to correct a violation followed by civil enforcement that requires roughly 21 days to appear in municipal court — about a 31-day path to court if the violation is not corrected.

On junk vehicles, staff proposed expanding definitions to cover “discarded, ruined, wrecked, dismantled motor vehicles, machinery, trailers or parts thereof” and other component parts that render a vehicle inoperative. Russell said the city removed a registration-status element contained in another city’s ordinance because an operable but unregistered vehicle could still be subject to other parts of Kalispell’s definition; the registration provision could be added back at council’s direction. The draft also includes exemptions and procedures for vehicles undergoing active repair; Russell said there is a 60-day exemption for vehicles under repair and additional shielding options (for example in a garage or behind a view‑obscuring fence) to avoid public-view enforcement.

Councilors repeatedly raised budget and scope questions. Several members said they were reluctant this year to ask voters for a new levy or to add a full-time city position. “I’m not super keen on it,” Councilor Dowd said, citing taxpayer sensitivity to levies and a desire to look for internal cuts before adding staff. Councilor Cady urged a data-driven approach: “I think we have an issue that needs to be addressed … I might suggest we monitor it for this year and track the complaints we get so we have data.”

Staff and one former code officer (identified in the meeting as PJ) said the number of summer complaints varies; PJ said a past proactive program generated about 60 weed-and-grass complaints in a summer and “probably 15 or so community decay junk-vehicle type of complaints.” Russell advised that a dedicated officer would permit proactive follow-up after abatement so problems do not recur, but he also cautioned that court hearings and abatement actions carry staff time and other costs.

Council briefly discussed funding structures. Russell said a dedicated program could be funded from the general fund or via a voter-approved special district or mill levy; he said placing the measure on the general election would use an election the city already pays for. No specific levy amount or formal cost estimate for a full-time equivalent (FTE) position was adopted during the meeting. A numerical cost figure mentioned during discussion was not presented in a verifiable form in the transcript and is recorded here as not specified.

After discussion the council coalesced around two near-term directions: staff should draft the recommended changes to the community decay and junk-vehicle ordinances and return to council, and staff should track complaints and report back next year so council can evaluate demand and budget needs. Councilors did not authorize creating a dedicated code-enforcement FTE at this meeting.

Public commenters offered mixed views. Resident Kyle urged caution about expanding enforcement and fees, calling some measures “government overreach,” while resident Jamie Quinn argued that code enforcement supports tourism and public safety and recommended attention to unsafe rental properties.

The city attorney and staff will prepare ordinance drafts for the two code sections and a one-year complaint-monitoring plan for council review.

Ending

Councilors asked staff to return with the two revised ordinances and a complaints report next year; no formal vote or budget authorization to create a full‑time code-enforcement officer was taken at the March 24 work session.